Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:49:16.233Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The effect of lactation length on greenhouse gas emissions from the national dairy herd

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 May 2012

E. Wall
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Penicuik, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
M. P. Coffey
Affiliation:
Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Penicuik, Midlothian EH25 9RG, UK
G. E. Pollott*
Affiliation:
Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London NW1 0TU, UK
*
Get access

Abstract

Many governments have signed up to greenhouse gas emission (GHGE) reduction programmes under their national climate change obligations. Recently, it has been suggested that the use of extended lactations in dairy herds could result in reduced GHGE. Dairy GHGE were modelled on a national basis and the model was used to compare emissions from lactations of three different lengths (305, 370 and 440 days), and a current ‘base’ scenario on the basis of maintaining current milk production levels. In addition to comparing GHGE from the average ‘National Herd’ under these scenarios, results were used to investigate how accounting for lactations of different lengths might alter the estimation of emissions calculated from the National Inventory methodology currently recommended by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Data for the three lactation length scenarios were derived from nationally recorded dairy performance information and used in the GHGE model. Long lactations required fewer milking cows and replacements to maintain current milk yield levels than short ones, but GHGEs were found to rise from 1214 t of CO2 equivalent (CE)/farm per year for lactations of 305 days to 1371 t CE/farm per year for 440-day lactations. This apparent anomaly can be explained by the less efficient milk production (kg milk produced per kg cow weight) found in later lactation, a more pronounced effect in longer lactations. The sensitivity of the model to changes in replacement rate, persistency and level of milk yield was investigated. Changes in the replacement rate from 25% to 20% and in persistency by −10% to +20% resulted in very small changes in GHGE. Differences in GHGE due to the level of milk yield were much more dramatic with animals in the top 10% for yield, producing about 25% less GHGE/year than the average animal. National Inventory results were investigated using a more realistic spread of lactation lengths than recommended for such calculations using emissions calculated in the first part of the study. Current UK emission calculations based on the National Inventory were 329 Gg of methane per year from the dairy herd. Using the national distribution of lactation lengths, this was found to be an underestimate by about 10%. This work showed that the current rise in lactation length or a move towards calving every 18 months would increase GHGE by 7% to 14% compared with the current scenario, assuming the same milk yield in all models. Increased milk yield would have a much greater effect on reducing GHGE than changes to lactation length, replacement rate or persistency. National Inventory methodology appears to underestimate GHGE when the distribution of lactation lengths is considered and may need revising to provide more realistic figures.

Type
Farming systems and environment
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allore, HG, Erb, HN 2000. Simulated effects on dairy cattle health of extending the voluntary waiting period with recombinant bovine somatotrophin. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 46, 2950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudrie, SL, Jackson, J, Watterson, JD, Murrells, T, Passant, N, Thomson, A, Cardenas, L, Leech, A, Mobbs, DC, Thistlewaite, G 2010. UK greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2008: annual report for submission under the framework convention on climate change. AEA Technology, Dicot, Oxfordshire, UK. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.airquality.co.uk/reports/cat07/1005070919_ukghgi-90-08_main_chapters_Issue3_Final.pdf.Google Scholar
DairyCo 2010. Is dairy cow fertility a lost cause? Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.dairyco.net/news/technical-articles/july-2010/is-dairy-cow-fertility-a-lost-cause.aspx.Google Scholar
Defra 2009. Agriculture in the UK 2007. The Stationery Office, London, UK.Google Scholar
Garnsworthy, P 2004. The environmental impact of fertility in dairy cows: a modelling approach to predict methane and ammonia emissions. Animal Feed Science and Technology 112, 211223.Google Scholar
Hopkins, A, Lobley, M 2009. A scientific review of the impact of UK ruminant livestock on greenhouse gas emissions. University of Exeter Centre for Rural Policy Research Report No. 27, pp. 34–35.Google Scholar
IPCC 1997. IPCC revised 1996 guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol. 3, greenhouse gas inventory reference manual, IPCC. WGI Technical Support Unit, Hadley Centre, Meteorological Office, Bracknell, UK.Google Scholar
IPCC 2006. 2006 guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html.Google Scholar
Kearney, F 2007. Improving dairy herd fertility through genetic selection. Irish Veterinary Journal 60, 376379.Google Scholar
Knight, CH 2008. Extended lactation in dairy cows: could it work for European dairy farmers? In Fertility in dairy cows: bridging the gaps (ed. MD Royal, NC Friggens and R Smith), pp. 138145. British Society of Animal Science, Edinburgh, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
PEPFAA 2005. Prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity: a code of good practice. Retrieved April 4, 2012, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/20613/51384.Google Scholar
Pollott, GE 2011. Short communication: do Holstein lactations of varied lengths have different characteristics? Journal of Dairy Science 94, 61736180.Google Scholar
Russell, AJF 1971. Relationship between energy intake and productivity in hill sheep. Nutrition of hill cattle and sheep. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 30, 197204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stott, AW, Coffey, MP, Brotherstone, S 2005. Including lameness and mastitis in a profit index for dairy cattle. Animal Science 80, 4152.Google Scholar
Williams, AG, Audsley, E, Sanders, DL 2006. Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities. Main report Defra Research Project IS0205. Cranfield University and Defra, Bedford. Available at www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk and www.defra.gov.uk.Google Scholar